Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Jansen (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Jansen[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Jordan Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Patently fails WP:BAND: hasn't had any big hits. Seems to be a promotion page by an image management company.(remove speculation) Slashme (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say that I personally find your strikethrough comment very offensive. Even after having created so many pages on Wikiquote (see, for example: Florbela Espanca; Cryonics; James Rachels; William Nicholson; Shelly Kagan; Piano; Psy; Henri de Saint-Simon; Iron Maiden; T'ao Ch'ien; I Ching; Pope Francis; Seth MacFarlane; Catiline, etc.), this is indeed the very first time that someone has accused me of creating a "promotion page". I really hope you were joking. It is true that the Jordan Jansen was the first article that I started here on Wikipedia, but your "speculation" is hardly a good welcome.
- I should like to know how exactly a video with over 4,6 millions views on Youtube does not qualify as a "big hit". Besides, the article presents sources. I hope that other people will add their comments and insights, as I obviously do not think this article should be deleted, and I would certainly call Jordan Jansen "notable". Regards, DanielTom (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel, please, do assume good faith on the part of the nominator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Daniel, thank you for the welcome message on my talk page. I didn't see your above comment when I submitted my vote so there must have been a cross edit. Regardless, my vote is based strictly on my interpretation and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As deletion discussions do not usually last more than a week from what I have seen, I would suggest taking the time to improve the article. One thing would be to remove some of the wording that would seem promotional to others reading it. As this is an encyclopedia, many people will tend to vote to delete an article based on promotional content. I would also suggest tracking down additional sources and adding them to the article. Sources should meet the Wikipedia guidelines which you can find at this link WP:RS. Voting "keep" along with your reasoning why goes further than assuming bad faith on the nominator. Just my two cents (which is probably only worth about half a penny). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did assume good faith, but I also assumed that I have the right to defend my reputation. I hope you agree. And trust me, my comment would have been different if I hadn't assumed good faith. Was it really necessary for the nomination to suggest that the article was "a promotion page by an image management company"? I don't think so myself and apparently the nominator agrees with me (given the strikethrough). Anyway, I don't have any problem apologizing (actually I do apologize) if my quick response sounded like I wasn't "assuming good faith"; I had, however, to clarify that I don't have an agenda, and that the strikethrough comment did bother me; indeed, right after I created that article, just a few seconds later, I was notified right away that someone had already proposed that it should be deleted, with very poor reasoning in my opinion (as I said, I think Jordan Jansen is clearly notable). In any case, I still have since then been adding a few more sources and info to the article (hopefully I have not been wasting my time). I apologize once again for my tone, but as you can imagine, after creating an article, receiving a notification like that can be distressing. Now I suggest we focus on the vote, and await for the results. Very truly yours, DanielTom (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you, DanielTom. I can say that there are many agendas with editors on Wikipedia and it is natural to say the first thing that comes to your mind when it appears that you see such. With that in mind, the purpose of "assuming good faith" is to simply assume, even though something may seem like an obvious agenda to you, that the editor who made the recommendation did so after careful consideration. There does not appear to be an agenda with Slashme as the nomination (although I disagree with it) is based on Wikipedia policy (notability - one of the most common themes for recommending deletion and rightfully so). I will not get into your right to defend yourself as Wikipedia is not a forum for that (nor is it a forum for agendas). I do not think anyone is accusing you of being anything; however, the point here is that you need to concentrate on finding additional sources and cleaning up the article. Slashme and myself are only two votes but there are many other editors who are going to come along in the next couple of days and weigh in with their opinions as well. The best way to get additional votes is to spend some time cleaning up the article and adding additional reliable sources. This will give editors a clearer view of the articles notability (or lack thereof). While everyone here has the right to cast their vote, it is important to give reasons for your vote. That is what you need to focus on here. Good luck. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much for your advice. Just a brief note to say that even ignoring the (in my opinion) clear notability of the subject, I still strongly believe that the article, as it stands, already has more than enough sources to guarantee that it can and should be kept. I am not saying that it doesn't need any more work: of course it does. I expect future editors will be able to build on it and improve it, unless we delete it now, that is. (And that's another obvious reason to oppose the deletion!) Best regards, DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
- Comment - Thank you, DanielTom. I can say that there are many agendas with editors on Wikipedia and it is natural to say the first thing that comes to your mind when it appears that you see such. With that in mind, the purpose of "assuming good faith" is to simply assume, even though something may seem like an obvious agenda to you, that the editor who made the recommendation did so after careful consideration. There does not appear to be an agenda with Slashme as the nomination (although I disagree with it) is based on Wikipedia policy (notability - one of the most common themes for recommending deletion and rightfully so). I will not get into your right to defend yourself as Wikipedia is not a forum for that (nor is it a forum for agendas). I do not think anyone is accusing you of being anything; however, the point here is that you need to concentrate on finding additional sources and cleaning up the article. Slashme and myself are only two votes but there are many other editors who are going to come along in the next couple of days and weigh in with their opinions as well. The best way to get additional votes is to spend some time cleaning up the article and adding additional reliable sources. This will give editors a clearer view of the articles notability (or lack thereof). While everyone here has the right to cast their vote, it is important to give reasons for your vote. That is what you need to focus on here. Good luck. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did assume good faith, but I also assumed that I have the right to defend my reputation. I hope you agree. And trust me, my comment would have been different if I hadn't assumed good faith. Was it really necessary for the nomination to suggest that the article was "a promotion page by an image management company"? I don't think so myself and apparently the nominator agrees with me (given the strikethrough). Anyway, I don't have any problem apologizing (actually I do apologize) if my quick response sounded like I wasn't "assuming good faith"; I had, however, to clarify that I don't have an agenda, and that the strikethrough comment did bother me; indeed, right after I created that article, just a few seconds later, I was notified right away that someone had already proposed that it should be deleted, with very poor reasoning in my opinion (as I said, I think Jordan Jansen is clearly notable). In any case, I still have since then been adding a few more sources and info to the article (hopefully I have not been wasting my time). I apologize once again for my tone, but as you can imagine, after creating an article, receiving a notification like that can be distressing. Now I suggest we focus on the vote, and await for the results. Very truly yours, DanielTom (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel, please, do assume good faith on the part of the nominator. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was that I read the article, had never heard of the artist, did a quick search and found very little that seemed to indicate serious notability beyond what I would expect from a typical music reality show contestant. I saw that the page had been deleted once before, so I assumed that this was just another starlet being puffed by a social media manager. After posting my comment, I checked your edit history, and realized that I was wrong, so I struck my comment out. The reason that the AFD came so quickly after the creation of the article was that I was doing new page patrolling. I didn't delete the comment, because I'd already posted it in my AFD nomination, and didn't want to look as if I was hiding anything. I'm sorry that you were offended by my incorrect assumption, and I'll be more careful in future. --Slashme (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your attention and explanation. I do appreciate it, and am sorry if I was too harsh. (Though I would suggest you watch this ... yep, now I'm just teasing you.) Anyway, no hard feelings from me. Yours truly, DanielTom (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - If you look at WP:BAND, having "any big hits" is not the only criteria. He would pass #1 simply on the fact that he is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." References including Courier Mail, Hollywood Life (snippet, but still all about him), and Dolly Magazine (appears on his website so I have not verified it) all appear to be the "multiple" needed. Finally, I am not sure what would qualify as "big hits" as he has released numerous songs, many of which are listed in sources such as Reverb Nation and other music sites. I would suggest toning down the promotion a little, but the article would qualify. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't like this kind of music and am extremely adverse to Justin Bieber, but it looks like Jordan makes the grade. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria #1. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.